(16-01-2016 03:09 PM)coyote Wrote: I'm not afraid of your response, though I find myself fearing your next misspelled word lol Gotta say, it's a nasty group I'm finding here. Y'all immediately leap to adhominems, as if you seem to imagine that hurling the first insult is how to win an argument.

* Ad hominem

I'm already aware of my disability to so spell words properly. So becoming a Grammar Nazi wont help ether of us. It will only be a waist of your time.

(16-01-2016 03:09 PM)coyote Wrote: Anyway, Tyson says we are stuck in the transition between past and future. That transition is NOW. We can only ever be in a place NOW. Yes we can track where we've been and when, but while we can revisit those places we cannot revisit that time. And if the future already exists, then we'd better start looking for the God that created it.

And then let's examine what Tyson really says at the beginning: time depends on repeatability. Our day is only what it is because every X arbitrary units, our planet rotates such that we again face our star head-on. Our year likewise only exists because of the duration of our planet's orbit around that star, and the number of rotations within that duration is our unit of measure.

I will say this about you Coyote. You've got some fire. And it appears you've put some time into thinking about this subject.

I'm not sure how I became your target of opposition.

Here is my best understanding on the subject.

Space and Time are the same thing. Spacetime. A single 4 dimensional tapestry of exsitance.

When we travel in Space we can find rates in Time change. Depending on a lot of different factors. Rate of speed, gravity. (Relativity)

That being said. It is true are fixed to the present. But it is possible for a object to move fast enough that time would not move at the same rate for it. If we said it was a person and the person moved at a fast enough pace for them let's say 10 years would pass and on earth time would move for 100 years. That person would have successfully traveled in time. The two presents not connecting. Moving in the wobble soup of time. The same would go If one was to aproch a black hole (and some how not become spaghettifed) for your time from an outside observer would come to a stop. But for your time would move at a rapid rate. Two presents moving at different times.

Should I accept your hypothesis. And say Time dose not exist. A lot of problems arise. At least for my understanding. My writing this for example would not be able to progress past the letter let alone pressing the button to engage in the reaction that would enviable create that letter would not be able to proceed.

Einsteins early theory of relativity couldn't work without the Spacetime. Once he factored Spacetime in his Theory came full circle.

Quote: And if the future already exists, then we'd better start looking for the God that created it.

Why would you think a God is required for anything?

Quote:So then. If time depends on repeatability, what of the 'time' immediately after the Big Bang??

The arrow of time is for us; the only way we will ever live. But in the eye of physics backwards and forwards is the same.

As I pretty sure I said before I do not have adequate knowledge of the events that followed the big bang. Just basic understandings that I've gathered over the years.

Quote:Like any explosion, there was stuff flying in all directions from the event point - but there was as of yet nothing repeating. As there was nothing repeating, was there no time??

The Big Bang is a misleading name. It's more of an great expansion.

I don't know things aren't repeating. All I have is this universe to examine. Their could be repeated accurances happening in something bigger then our universe. There could be universe's popping up all the time.

And as I said a little while ago In the eyes of physics backwards and forwards is the same. Maybe at some point the universe collapses in on itself, or we can continue to expand till all the star in the sky fade into nothingness. I don't know. And I will never know.

Time dilation shows that space/time is created by perception through measurement
The double slit experiment shows that particle/wave duality is created by perception through measurement
The atomic grating experiment shows that Atomic Constructive/Destructive lack of interference is created by perception through measurement
Particle spin is created by perception through measurement
Philosophy shows that we cannot test what exists for certain outside of our perception.
Creation need not have to have a beginning if space/time is created by perception

By using one of the Os to limit another O, you're redefining what the O means.

Ex:

God's omnipotent and omniscient. But if He's omniscient then He can't be omnipotent because He's powerless to change His own future.

This is an interesting school of thought, but like any good paradox, it simply can't exist.

By limiting His omnipotence via omniscience you're redefining omnipotence to mean "almost all powerful". Therefore, the omnipotent label has to be removed.

The GRP has been used for years, and it's actually just a clever fallacy.

The real question should be how can a Christian believe in two paradoxical characteristics exist within one being.

There is no justification for it other than blind faith and/or the belief that we can't fully understand God.

So yeah, your conundrum that you presented (the GRP) cannot exist. It simply cannot be while retaining the actual definitions of omnipotence and omniscience.

It order to address this in the future, the question should be to the theist as to how they can believe this paradox exist in one being.

Please refrain from acronyms, or please at least state once what they stand for. The GRP?? Last I ever heard it stood for Gross Rating Point - and I hardly see how the Nielsen ratings are relevant to this conversation

Anyway, I don't think you are correct. We don't redefine 'omnipotent' by limiting it with any other O. Rather, ***any*** limit that we can find states that the omnipotence in question does not exist! Doesn't matter where we find it. Someone else in this thread stated that an Omni-being cannot be worldly. Well.... If God cannot be temporal, then he lacks that power. Right? Which given the definition of omnipotence, means he falls short of it! The moment you find ANY limit at all, where ever you may find it, you necessarily exclude the entity so limited from fitting the definition of omnipotence.

Omnipotence = no limits on your powers; nothing you cannot do.
Find anything that your supposedly omnipotent entity cannot do, BANG that entity can no longer be defined as omnipotent.

That we have done.
So it matters not why folks might believe in such an entity.

I was at a funeral last night, and I see why people might choose to believe. The nephew of the deceased (a dear friend of mine, he was a great guy) talked about how he got a message from his dad, who died a year ago. He spoke of how songs playing on the radio were that message, and how this is not a final goodbye but a temporary one until they meet again in heaven. He also read passages from the bible, led the attendees in the Lord's Prayer, etc. I can see where they might find such belief comforting, why they might sincerely put stock in it.

Quote:Sensei, you are not my 'target'. You are merely a stream of words on a message board. Your silly penchant for adhominems aside, I have no issue with you in particular.

Well I must admit I am silly.

This isn't a stadium debate. This is more of a bar. So you shouldn't really be surprised if topics shift threw conversation. Ad hominems are bound to happen.

Quote:So then. Why would a future that already exists need a god to create it??
On a planetary scale, perhaps it doesn't. The sun will either fade out in the future (likely) or go supernova (highly unlikely). Human activity cannot affect those things.
But life makes choices. Choices determine futures, choices life makes NOW.

That doesn't really answer the question you presented.

Quote: question: Was your previous post pre-scripted? By what?

Not necessarily.

I could get real deep with my response to the second question. But then that starts moving into free-will territory. Which doesn't really have much to do with time. Unless you're comfortable with shifting the conversation? Like I said this is more of a bar atmosphere.

But my short response would be past experiences, and pre-set word cognition.

Quote:A naturally occurring universe, given the alternative, makes sense. But a naturally occurring universe in which I have no choice but to type this question? Because it has been pre-scripted, like a Shakespearian play? Given certain realities (among them entropy and chaos theory), that is a level of matter/energy organization that does NOT make sense.... unless there is sentience involved. I will argue today against vilifying Hitler if he had no choice in the matter. He was then, as he often claimed, fulfilling his destiny.

You're starting to confuse me here a little Coyot.

We seem to be leaning more into if free-will exists more then if time exists.

I would agree that when we start moving into Physics and the iner-workings it's all very confusing. But that's why i'm not a physicist.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin

(19-01-2016 09:25 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote: Time dilation shows that space/time is created by perception through measurement
The double slit experiment shows that particle/wave duality is created by perception through measurement
The atomic grating experiment shows that Atomic Constructive/Destructive lack of interference is created by perception through measurement
Particle spin is created by perception through measurement
Philosophy shows that we cannot test what exists for certain outside of our perception.
Creation need not have to have a beginning if space/time is created by perception

By using one of the Os to limit another O, you're redefining what the O means.

Ex:

God's omnipotent and omniscient. But if He's omniscient then He can't be omnipotent because He's powerless to change His own future.

This is an interesting school of thought, but like any good paradox, it simply can't exist.

By limiting His omnipotence via omniscience you're redefining omnipotence to mean "almost all powerful". Therefore, the omnipotent label has to be removed.

The GRP has been used for years, and it's actually just a clever fallacy.

The real question should be how can a Christian believe in two paradoxical characteristics exist within one being.

There is no justification for it other than blind faith and/or the belief that we can't fully understand God.

So yeah, your conundrum that you presented (the GRP) cannot exist. It simply cannot be while retaining the actual definitions of omnipotence and omniscience.

It order to address this in the future, the question should be to the theist as to how they can believe this paradox exist in one being.

Please refrain from acronyms, or please at least state once what they stand for. The GRP?? Last I ever heard it stood for Gross Rating Point - and I hardly see how the Nielsen ratings are relevant to this conversation

Anyway, I don't think you are correct. We don't redefine 'omnipotent' by limiting it with any other O. Rather, ***any*** limit that we can find states that the omnipotence in question does not exist! Doesn't matter where we find it. Someone else in this thread stated that an Omni-being cannot be worldly. Well.... If God cannot be temporal, then he lacks that power. Right? Which given the definition of omnipotence, means he falls short of it! The moment you find ANY limit at all, where ever you may find it, you necessarily exclude the entity so limited from fitting the definition of omnipotence.

Omnipotence = no limits on your powers; nothing you cannot do.
Find anything that your supposedly omnipotent entity cannot do, BANG that entity can no longer be defined as omnipotent.

That we have done.
So it matters not why folks might believe in such an entity.

I was at a funeral last night, and I see why people might choose to believe. The nephew of the deceased (a dear friend of mine, he was a great guy) talked about how he got a message from his dad, who died a year ago. He spoke of how songs playing on the radio were that message, and how this is not a final goodbye but a temporary one until they meet again in heaven. He also read passages from the bible, led the attendees in the Lord's Prayer, etc. I can see where they might find such belief comforting, why they might sincerely put stock in it.

Yeah... I don't think you understood what I was saying; as you just more or less reiterated what I said.

If you have a limit on "omnipotence" then that thing isn't omnipotent; therefore, it can't be called omnipotent. Same for omniscience.

This is why I said the conundrum cannot exist. You can't ask "if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then can He ________?"

Any answer would null the definition of omnipotence; thus, forcing an answer that "He is all powerful but with limits."

Which =/= omnipotence/omniscience.

Hence, changing the definition.

It's a paradox for a reason.

The question can be asked; however, it cannot exist if you want to remain true to the actual definition of omnipotence/omniscience.

Chosen... Got it. I wondered if we were in something of agreement there.
That said, the moment anyone states their God is omnipotent (which multiple bible verses clearly infer, as stated above) then we hve to ask that question! Which of course rules itself out as per the earlier statements.